July 11, 2006

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Returning from the United Kingdom and the Metropolitan Tabernacle

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. It is a warm day here in Phoenix, Arizona. Heading it's already 101 degrees 11 o 'clock in the morning heading for a high at least according to this one of a hundred and eleven I've heard a hundred and ten and And for those of you that's 38 degrees for all of my UK listening audience and The high then what was that about?

44 something like that somewhere around that area how to get used to that because Just got back from From the United Kingdom a wonderful time once again with all of the Saints. There is a quick time only only a week this particular point in time, but Still wonderful opportunity to speak at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in the School of Theology and to meet all the wonderful folks there and Of course, I had never been to the School of Theology before but had the opportunity of meeting folks from literally all over the world there and to speak on two topics and not really closely related but the Da Vinci Code and then I did basically a Presentation on how the Evangelical Church today is functionally non-trinitarian not anti Trinitarian but non-trinitarian and ironically I got back and a couple folks had sent me a URL to Greg Stafford announcing that he's going back to the Kingdom Hall and Which I found most interesting I Had in in talking with mr. Stafford our debate in 2003 and in fact he mentions me in the in this discussion Had Detected I don't know some you know, I'd mentioned to him.

I said to him straight up. I said, you know, you're in a tough situation what are you gonna do and evidently that situation continues and Now he's headed back to Visiting on a limited basis the the Kingdom Hall.

He has spoken with the elders there and and again this continues to be a fascinating situation to me I've said for many years now. In fact, I think it was 98 at the Evangelical Theological Society presented a paper on mr. Stafford and I Mentioned at that time that he will be a test case For the society as to how they're going to handle internal and not so much protest as difference of opinion from someone who obviously Knows the issues can provide documentation things like that.

And so I keep an eye on what's what's going on with Dave with a great Stafford so anyway, I Spoke on that subject and the pictures on the blog, especially the real nice picture that Brother Comston took for me from up in the balcony.

Thankfully, you can't tell that I am absolutely dripping wet in that picture Roger Brazier and I had gotten caught in a downpour and It should I should make this known across the world that Priscilla Brazier said take an umbrella, but Roger said no and We got nailed.

I mean I I came through the doors 15 minutes before I was supposed to speak I had water flowing down my head and for some reason it was stinging my eyes I could barely see where I was going. I'm surprised I didn't bowl some poor little old lady over trying to get to the restroom back near the speakers room and I'm Mopping myself off.

I'm shaking my suit jacket out and it's just spraying water everywhere sorry about that if anyone came in and slipped on that and for some odd reason the paper towels are green and As I'm dabbing my suit off and my tie off and my shirt off and stuff and of course, it's very humid.

So I'm sweating like anything as well. So I've just been through this downpour. I get all these little green fibers all over the you know. Oh it I stood there from a fan in the speakers room until right before I had to go out.

Just trying to dry myself off. So you see that picture and the the subtitle in my mind is drip drip. It's just I hope I didn't leave like a puddle up there behind me Behind the podium is just terrible.

I just got nailed and so it was. Yep, I needed the Brawley. I needed a Brawley big-time. We got we got nailed. So anyway, and of course, of course poor Roger. He's wearing a light tan jacket now. At least my jacket was dark charcoal color.

So you really can't you couldn't tell unless you touched me that I was that I was soaked literally to the skin I mean straight through. But Roger he's wearing tan. What happens and that gets soaked. It's it's a bad.

It's a bad thing. So it was. But you know you try to put that kind of thing behind you you try not to be thinking about it and Of course once you get up there in the Metropolitan Tabernacle and start talking to folks you You get focused on what you're you're speaking about and I but I haven't mentioned on the blog, but I'll mention to you folks.

Yeah, I was yeah more than one person has mentioned that that was my Methodist baptism of some sorts. Because you know, obviously I definitely got sprinkled but I Believe and I didn't ask Peter Masters this and I probably should have but I'm pretty certain about 99 certain that I am the first person to have ever spoken from the pulpit of the Metropolitan Tabernacle using nothing but a tablet PC.

Probably no one's ever used a palm either. I could have could have captured both records you know if I just switch between the two, but I used only my tablet PC and Someone channel just said being soaked isn't being sprinkled.

Well when you're sprinkled for you know, like 10 minutes straight heavily the result is being soaked. So it was a it was a it was a Baptist Methodist baptism. Okay, it was sort of in between I looked like I had been dunked but I only got the sprinkling part.

So anyway, let's not get into that subject today. But I think I was definitely the first one to have ever used just a tablet PC in my presentation. Well, you know something to remember when I'm old, you know next year which is right around the corner probably 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 and we last time we were together we were listening to Dr. Page Patterson's comments at the Southern Miss Convention in his dialogue with our molar.

By the way, I have some before we get back into that I have some new CDs that I'm right now even just a few moments before the program started was converting to mp3 to load into my My little mini iPod to carry while writing and Listen to some stuff I have Johnny Hunt's series on theology that he presented I believe to his youth this summer and I'm converting those because there's a good deal discussion of divine sovereignty and human responsibility and things like that.

And so We'll want to review that and then Rich gave me some CDs today that came in while I was over in the UK and They they were accompanied with this note. See there we go I'm not sure why Someone gets paid millions and millions and millions of dollars to do that.

And all it is is just just doing that June 21st 2006 to James White here are seven CDs from a great Catholic apologist Associated with EWTN. I don't think you stand a chance in refuting him. So I figured you would like to meet your match.

He has already eaten your lunch. So listen and weep listen to once saved always saved first because of Mary and Jesus J Lee. I Hope no one who likes what we do around here would ever Write a note like that to somebody and send my CDs to somebody.

I mean, I I don't even want to I I would like to think maybe That whoever it is on this CD and do you they're in on my desk? Who was month Monte Ghanou or month? Whatever it is a rich said he started listening to some of it.

And That this guy is would you if you just listen to him remember years and years ago? I forget how long ago it was but one day on the dividing line. Yeah, sure. Everybody remembers this actually I have run into like three or four people who've listened to every dividing line.

They're scary. They're very very scary people. There's one Did he did he this is the Bible Christian Society in Pleasant Grove, Alabama? And this is John Martin Yanni, MA TR IG no and I Martinoni possibly but anyway, and one saved always saved yeah, and Thought I'll listen to him.

I'll mp3 him and listen to him all riding and and might make a great Radio free Geneva because from what rich said this guy could be Dan corner Dan corner with a Mary complex, you know, it's put together and a lot of the arguments identical just the exact same stuff and remember a few years ago on the dividing line I played a Section from well, what was it?

Well, I know I put Carl Keating and Dave Hunt right next to each other Saying the exact same thing about predestination election because when it comes to that issue and the issue of God's grace man's will Look Dave Hunt Carl Keating.

They're on the same page. They say the same thing, you know, that's that's all there is to it. So we'll listen to those and Try to get them set up for the program as well, even though There won't be a problem any program next week.

Well, there no no program next week. Couldn't couldn't couldn't talk that one particular guy into actually, you know trying to do it now tried. Well, we tried, you know, we you know, anyway, oh. Well, so there's no program next week and it's not because I'm gone actually for some weird reason rich wants to go someplace and Yeah, yeah, you can imagine what would happen, huh?

Just an explosion, you know boom. Rich wants to go someplace. So I can't do this program. You know, I probably could as long as we didn't take calls I could get the thing started and turn on the mic Pop the music down scream as I run in.

Hold on. I'm coming. It's to down throw the microphone on and we ha there we go. And as long as I'm just playing stuff, you know. It's it's possible. So who knows maybe if you could put a if you could put a Checklist together for me.

I might be able to do it. It's worth its shot. You know, I mean given how old you are man, I mean you could drop any second. Yeah, see see right there we need to have a backup program here something it would be good to have a have a checklist there Place place guy man sermon from 2004.

That's right. Oh Oh, that was Unical man. Okay, rich just rich just waved and left and he looked really sad Unical man is a very mean person and he just he just crushed for riches spirits and Some of you have no idea what in the world we're talking about that's okay because this is a live webcast and We do not pretend at a whole very high level of professionalism.

Anyhow, all right. We continue on with yeah, see now you're getting some support there. See coach said poor rich and even though coach can't spell his own name. He hit that little zero button there. But other than that See if you don't if you don't go in channel when it's when it's live.

What can what can we say you don't you don't get to see what's going on? Anyhow back to Paige Patterson, by the way be listening carefully. I listened to this now. I was a little distracted I was doing other stuff.

I think I was working on a desk or something while I was listening to it I was a little distracted so I didn't catch this first time around Allen in in Atlanta caught it pointed out to me. I went back and listened and he was right.

But listen carefully in this next section because something we all have heard before will It's gonna happen again. And it after a while you just start chuckling at this. So just just keep a keep a An ear out here.

Let's continue on with what Paige Patterson was saying now.

The Universal Salvific Will and the Extent of the Atonement

Let me move in the final analysis to what I call doing evangelism. Or why I believe my perspective assists me in doing evangelism. This is by way of testimony. First of all, I believe it is God's will to save all.

Listen to what first Timothy 2 3 to 6 says for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior Who desires all men to be saved now? Again.

How many times have we heard? the contextless citation of first Timothy 2 4 and 2nd Peter 3 9 and Matthew 23 37 and in a conversation like this If I were to be talking with the Arminian Parallel to Al Mohler I Would want to at least present my comments on this text.

Demonstrating that I know What the other side is going to say that I at least know. The arguments they're going to they're going to present and I know they're going to talk about Christ mediation and the nature of intercession.

So there's there is there are ways in which you could try to present the idea that you know what? I know where you're coming from here. I know that there's another way of looking at this and this is why I don't Accept your exegesis, or I think this is a better way to read it.

You know, you could at least say something along the lines of now in First Timothy 2 4 I believe we have a universal will of God expressed in salvation. What you could do is you could you could actually quote some reform folks that actually view it that way and Still say some long lines of and I and I understand that we need to discuss questions about the extent of Christ mediation but I still think that this presents a Universal salvific will.

At least you could give some indication that you've listened to the other side. I think that's the thing that frustrates so many of us is we don't we don't see that indication. We don't we don't get any idea that we're gonna get anything out of the other side than the same Shallow repetition of the same text that don't indicate any respect for the other side in the sense of listening and and.

And responding in some fashion. I think that's what frustrates a lot of us at that point and therefore gave himself a.

Ransom for all listen to 2nd Peter 3 9. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some counts likeness But as long-suffering toward us not willing that any should perish. But that all should come to repentance.

I believe it is the will of God that all men should be saved. Now the Calvinist must fall back on the idea of two wills of God a revealed will and a Secret will. The problem with the secret will. Of course that it is secret.

And we cannot know about that at all not only that it pits the secret. Well in juxtaposition and over against his revealed. Well now even if that were true, and I.

Again. Is it is it not the case? That dr. Patterson has to address the exact same issues. It's one thing to raise the objection but does he not have the exact same. Isn't it very clear. If he says it is God's will that all to be saved and God's will is to be accomplished.

Then which will Determined creation which will was guiding in creation, or was there any will guiding in creation at all? I mean this raises all the same issues all the same things have to keep coming up.

This side has to answer these questions. But we don't see any answers being being off which I find to be impossible.

So I believe rather that Ken Keith Lee it is excellent article. Salvation and the sovereignty of God is right to say no. There is an antecedent will and a Consequent will of God. His antecedent will is that all men should be saved.

But because all men do not respond to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ his Consequent will is that they be given that choice and be given the privilege of saying no to Christ. And yes to eternity in hell now.

Again. How do you understand that. How do you. How do you. That sounds like something far more? Complex and troubling than any super lapsarian infralaps arian modified super laps arian sub laps arian.

Type of discussion. Because now evidently within God's own will there is Determinative man's will and so now you have temporality you have God's will being determined by human actions. You. What happens to the eternity of God what happens to God's.

How does God have all knowledge of all future events? How does how does any of that work out? Introducing this kind of language isn't solving anything. It only it only raises even more troubling issues in regards to God's actual.

Purposes in creation itself. Number two. I believe that his death on the cross Constitutes an atonement for the entire race. I believe the Bible bears out the universal nature of the atonement list now before he gets into it.

What is? atonement. I Mean. I've told the story many times before. I remember doing the dividing line back when we did it on a radio station back in the 19 1980s mid -1980s about 20 years ago now sitting in a studio.

I remember which studio it was but I'm not sure exactly which where it was located. I remember sitting in this studio. I think it's KXEG at the time and This we were talking about election and. Even as a Southern Baptist I had believed in the doctrine of election.

And I had I had been raised with the doctrine of election. I've mentioned many times that my my father was a graduate mood Bible Institute and the the first systematic theology I ever saw the first systematic theology ever opened up the the spine was was gone.

It was the covers were held on with with tape. Was PB Fitzwater's systematic theology and PB Fitzwater was a Presbyterian and Presbyterians back in the 40s and 50s Generally still believed in things called like predestination election and.

So I'd had that concept as part of my upright upbringing. I remember very clearly going to Glorietta, New Mexico to the conference center there and one particular summer just struggling I believe as a junior in high school with with these issues and trying to figure them out and and pacing around the the Lake there at Glorietta.

Trying to visualize how this worked. I mean those yeah, I know as a junior high school those are the things I was thinking about and and struggling with and working through and. So it wasn't anything new to believe in God's election, but the idea of limited atonement.

I'd never actually heard it particularly expounded in a biblical fashion of course and It was in reading a book on the five points of Calvinism. It was Dwayne Spencer's book where he asks a simple question when he talks about the atonement.

Well did he or didn't he. Was it an atonement or was it not an atonement? Did he atone for sins or not atone for thin sins this this theoretical hypothetical element of it? Where do you get that from if he substituted if it was a real substitution?

Then either it accomplished atonement or it didn't this theoretical part about well, you know it may or it may not. But it's actually not up to God. It's not up to the Father Son Spiritist where that that is accomplished.

It's actually up to the man and and blah blah blah blah. Where does that come from and that was where I really was was forced to to work through? The the idea of What atonement is and of course then you combine that with any meaningful reading of the book of Hebrews?

And you're really stuck with this this idea of a perfect atonement and so Dr.. Patterson's about to talk about atonement well if he's going to do so Then he's got to do so in light of Owen. He's got to do so in light of Calvin.

He's got to do so in light of Spurgeon. He's got to do so in light of of what has been said on these issues. Will he do so well? That's another reason why this this kind of a format where you don't have meaningful interaction.

Just can't answer these questions. And Isaiah 53 6 all we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way, and the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all who is the us all.

Do do lost people rejoice as You have in Isaiah 53 in the laying of their sins upon the substitute. Messiah is. This. Are these the words of Muslims. Are these the words of Mormons. Are these the words of those who who are are not?

In obedience to Christ and who do not bow the knee to God's truth in regards to the cross. Can can the people in hell quote Isaiah 53 of themselves? Of course not. There's nothing about Isaiah 53 to us all.

Assumption. Every human being can say that my response. Prove it. Prove it. Will he be challenged on that?

The all we like sheep that have gone astray the same word all in the end. He gave. He placed upon him the iniquity of us all now. There's that there you go now.

There's someone might say ah see there is an exegetical Argument that is being put forward. It's the same word all and. So if it's all of us like sheep Have gone astray each of us has turned to his own way the Lord's caused iniquity of us all to fall on him.

That means. Since everyone's sinned that means Christ has borne everyone's sin. Now sit back for just a moment. Lay your prejudices aside and think think is That a valid argument. All have sinned. All of us like sheep have gone astray.

Each of us has turned to his own way, but the Lord has caused iniquity of us all to fall on him. Think about a moment. What is the the logical breakdown here? Where did that where the argument go wrong?

It goes wrong. It doesn't it doesn't follow. It's real simple. All of the elect can say those words that does not mean that all Humanity would say those words. Every single one who is saved was a sinner.

That does it does not follow. However, that that means that the iniquity of every single human being was laid upon Christ. All have sinned all have fallen in Adam, right? Romans chapter 5 all have fallen in Adam.

Do all receive life in Christ. No, there's two humanities there. So while we share one area all have fallen in Adam only a certain number unless again You're a universalist unless again, you're gonna you're gonna turn this into universal salvation.

Only those who are in Christ receive justification unto life not just theoretically but in reality and so while all mankind can say I Am fallen in Adam only those in Christ receive justification of the life.

And so just because the word all is used doesn't mean that all always refers to the same group in totality. That's just a logical error that you could turn into. You know any type of any number of absurd arguments if you wanted to but that's just simply not a valid argument in any way.

Shape or form whatever all means in the first case. It has to mean in the second case.

No, as I just said that is that is completely false. Use just because every one of the elect is a sinner. If You try to use the argumentation of dr. Patterson just use and it amazes me that he would use this argumentation.

It truly does because it seems it's so obvious upon reflection all of the elect sinned. Does that mean that? Everyone who sins is of the elect. That's the argumentation. That's what he just said. All has to mean all.

All elect our sinners. Therefore all sinners are elect. You can't a You can't. Logically it breaks down at every single point and yet that is the argumentation that was just presented to us and it.

It amazes me, but that's. That's what you run into. Listen to Hebrews 2 9. But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angel for the suffering of death Crowned with glory and honor that he might by the grace of God taste of death for every man.

Everybody is included in those for whom he tasted death.

Now does he go past that does he go past just that one? Citation. Read the rest of it. Talk about the brothers and those who are chosen. No, he doesn't. You just take a little thing. That's gonna support your position.

You know that this has been addressed by many people over and over. He's got to he's got to know that but you string these things together and you make your point and I Cannot tell anybody why someone in dr. Patterson's position would do this.

I don't I can't judge motivations. I don't know my gut feeling. Where I start with all these folks is this is their tradition. This is what they've been comfortable with and my experience is in the vast majority of instances.

Once this subject comes up. The ears turn off the mind turns off. You just go back to your default stuff. You got in Bible College and you just go on from there and that's why you don't see any recognition of what the issues are.

That are being that are being addressed. Listen to first Timothy 410. For to this end We both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the Living God who is the Savior of all men but especially of those who believe.

Now again.

I'm not sure. You know, what is what does that mean? What do you want Savior to mean at that point is what what is the accomplishment? I guess is the is the question I want to ask in in presenting from his perspective that idea of all men and that means just in a in a theoretical sense in a in a way that That can't have any particular meaning.

What how does he deal with with Malista. I just quote in our in our channel a Quotation of my Howard Marshall. I. Howard Marshall is no reformed theologian. But in his commentary says adoption of the traditional translation of Malista as especially Leads to some strained exegesis.

These problems disappear if we accept the other possible translation to be precise. Namely, I mean all is thus limited here to believers. I Howard Marshall and pH town of the pastoral pistols TNT Clark 1999 page.

556 if you would like to look that up the atonement is universal though accepted by only those who believe. Again in first. In second Peter 2 1 he speaks of men who have been carried away with heresies And who deny the Lord who bought them even them the Lord had paid the price for our.

Finally in first. Well this again.

Ignoring all the issues the difference between courteous despotase the fact that purchase price is always mentioned in any redemptive context. See the article on 2nd Peter 2 1 on the website. Just flying by that stuff and that again.

It I suppose if you're only presenting this to folks who have never ever ever Discussed this before or there's been no preceding discussion of a such something like that, okay? Maybe I can understand that but that's not the case.

This is a president of a theological seminary. There are all sorts of people in his staff that knows that there's there's tons of stuff behind this and is he just going to assume That that the answers that have been given from the Arminian perspective the anti-reform perspective are just so overwhelmingly good.

You don't have to even give an indication that you know about the other perspective.

I don't know John 2 1 2. Or in first John 1 2 2 2 he says. And he paid this price the propitiation for our sins. And not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world again.

That's an even stronger term propitiation that which takes away wrath. Where is the place of God? Where is the place of the wrath of God upon the whole world if this is true? If you make whole world here not Jews and Gentiles.

But every single human being if you if you ignore the ancient context you make it a Western individualistic thing. Which isn't even a part of the context. Begin with if you do that. Then why is it the God's wrath is being revealed if it has been propitiated?

Isn't that what propitiation means. See this is what eventually leads folks to the to the mistranslation of that term is expiation and losing the aspect of wrath. Because once you do that, this is why universalism Arminian ism Historically breaks down into universalism for these very reasons.

Look at what look at what has happened to the Methodists. Look at what has happened to that denomination. Someone I say well, yeah, we'll look at your brother your liberal Presbyterians, too. Well, that's they no longer believe in the authority the Word of God.

That's one of the main problems there. But that's that's a whole not another issue believing that.

Evangelism, Human Ability, and the Great Commission

Everyone may will to come to Christ and that the appeal of the gospel is to all I believe it affects my Ministry as an evangelist of the gospel. Now stop right there and think for just a moment.

Believing that every person has that capacity. Now if you're gonna make that statement and you actually know the field Then what are you gonna have to deal with. I mean if you're gonna make a Just a blanket statement like that that our evangelistic methodology should be based upon the idea That every person has the capacity in of themselves to come to Christ every equally and.

You know the Bible and you know this field. What would you be under I would imagine a moral obligation to address? John 644 Jesus his own words. No, man has the ability to come unto me now even if you're just gonna offer The a contextual eisegetical really bad.

Jump out of John 6 go to John 12 at least try. I mean that one fails to that one can be shot down and should be shot down, but still not even a. Who are you trying to convince here is really the question?

That's what I'd like to know. I mean if you're talking to Al Mohler about this kind of stuff. Don't you need to? Go a little bit farther.

Do do a little something more. Again I know I believe that humans may resist the gospel hence the gospel is not irresistible. Jesus pled with Jerusalem Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem. Ones who killed the prophets and stoned them that are sent her how.

Often would I have gathered you you together as chickens as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings. But you were not willing. Or again in Hebrews 10 catch it.

To catch it there. It is again. There it is again if you missed it. Let me play it again.

Well Jesus pled with Jerusalem Oh Jerusalem Jerusalem. Ones who killed the prophets and stoned them that are sent her how. Often would I have gathered you you together as chickens as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.

But you were not willing.

There it is. How many times now I've lost track. I mean we caught RC Sproul doing this once the whole Dave Hunt thing started with his misquoting it. We later called it a paraphrase in his newsletter.

How many people have we caught misquoting this thing. We've caught Geisler misquoting it now. We're catching page Patterson misquoting it. That's not what Matthew 23 37 says. So if all these people Repeatedly miss cited missing the the vital distinction that the one Jesus the ones Jesus wants to gather and you have to assume this means in some way Soteriological method in some soteriological context and ignore the context that this is actually judgment on the Jewish leaders ignoring all that stuff there's a difference in Matthew 23 37 between gathering your children and You were not willing.

What were you not willing to be gathered? No, you were not willing to let Christ gather your children. This is talking about the Jewish leaders and their resistance to Jesus ministry in Jerusalem. If you can constantly miss cite that What does this mean about the thickness of the lens of the tradition glasses that you have glued to your face.

You're not listening to the text. The text is no longer your ultimate authority here. Your traditions have become Your ultimate authority in this context and that's what you have going on here. And that's what I hadn't missed.

That's what I hadn't heard. I had missed it. I Was distracted or something? I was just going okay first over the two four second three three nine. I wonder what Matthew 23 37 is gonna show up and you know, eventually it did and I and I missed that one but Just miss cites it While still making the you were not willing.

Yeah, and that's the whole point of Jesus's condemnation of them was their Unwillingness to allow God to do what God wanted to do in Jerusalem had nothing to do with the application being made here. About man's ability to thwart the divine intention of God in self-glorification and salvation or again in Hebrews 10 39.

But we are not of those who draw back into perdition but of those who respond to the saving of the soul.

What that has to do with anything here? I haven't finally.

I believe it is my position as a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To do all I can to persuade men everywhere to come to Christ and I do too and.

That's why I do What I do. And that's why I do what I do in context that people who follow Patterson's viewpoint won't. In Fact it's Patterson's viewpoint that leads to this methodology where you you use Surveys to examine your area and you you craft your message to try to meet what people want.

And and because you're focused upon the man rather than upon the Spirit of God who raises man to spiritual life. Okay, we need to keep that in mind. It didn't really come out I think as sharply as it should have in this type of a context.

But again to even raise this issue in this way Demonstrates a misunderstanding of the subject that's being addressed. Paul says that's what he did.